Why doesn’t CMI take a position on … ?

The rationale behind CMI’s focus

Published: 27 December 2011(GMT+10)

CMI fans (and even opponents) are sometimes keen for CMI to take a ministry position
on their own favorite topic. But like most organizations, Creation Ministries International
(CMI) has a special focus. Especially because it is not a church but rather a parachurch
organization, its purpose isn’t to address, or have an official position on,
every possible issue having to do with biblical Christianity.1 While CMI exists to uphold Scripture’s authority
on all things of which it speaks, its specialty—or ‘focus’—is
the issue of Creation by the Triune God as opposed to evolution, and that from a
scientific perspective as well as a biblical one.

Our final authority

Of course, for an organization with a primary goal of upholding the
authority of Scripture, claims of ‘special revelation’, ‘personal
experience’, ‘the Spirit led me’, or ‘God told
me’ to believe such and such are rightly dismissed in favor of what Scripture
clearly (or even less clearly) teaches—especially when such
revelations contradict Scripture. A good rule of thumb is: “Don’t
tell me you’ve ‘had a special revelation’ or that ‘the Spirit
convinced’ you of a doctrinal position. Instead, tell me where in Scripture
you read it or how you
logically deduced it from Scripture. Otherwise I’m not interested.”

But even where a specific doctrine is dealt with in Scripture, debates
on such may not be suitable for CMI articles, creation talks or Q&A times, or
discussion threads on
CMI’s Facebook pageabout those articles. As with a political
party or any other large group of people, the entire collection of opinions on every
issue will differ from person to person within the organization. A larger and stronger
stand on the major issues is easier when 100% agreement isn’t required
on every minor issue as well. And while all biblical doctrines
have obviously been deemed important enough by the Holy Spirit to be included in
Scripture, there remain more important truths and less important
truths.

CMI has also pointed out that debates on many other subjects, such as the Millennium,
mode and subject of baptism, Sabbath observance, etc., are over what Scripture says,
presupposing that it’s the final authority. But the debate over Creation
concerns whether Scripture or ‘science’ is the authority regarding
Earth history (see End-times and Early-times).

Many doctrines are relatively unimportant when compared to the essential
doctrines—those that are basic beliefs before one might properly even be considered
a Christian.

Major doctrines and minor doctrines

But is that to imply there are no ‘correct’ positions? Not
necessarily. The point is that many doctrines are relatively unimportant when compared
to the essential doctrines—those that are basic beliefs before one
might properly even be considered a Christian. Nor do such passages rule out ‘in-between’
doctrines as CMI would see them, doctrines that are important but not essential:
issues like Creation vs. evolution, the extent of the
Noachian Flood, and the existence
(or not) of extraterrestrial life.

Naturally, there have to be some beliefs in common to even build a ministry
around. It would be ridiculous for CMI’s CMI’s
Statement of Faith to be nothing but ‘We believe in Creation’,
since this could include adherents to almost any religion—even atheism
(if only those adherents who accept the
‘creation’ of life by extraterrestrials) and polytheism. Here,
an obvious consideration comes into play: If agreement on the issue of Creation
is important, how much more the
deity of Christ and other essentials of the Gospel?
Thus, these are included in CMI’s Statement of Faith as well.

Of course, once it’s allowed that salvation isn’t dependent on one’s
rejection of evolution (see Can Christians
believe evolution?), it’s hardly appropriate to consider the lesser
issues of one’s views on tithing, the acceptability of alcohol consumption,
or capital punishment as important enough to establish battle lines (let alone determine
one’s salvation).

Effective battle strategy

Even on scientific issues outside of Scripture, there’s wisdom in
limiting the number of battles to be fought. Some Facebook commenters have gone
so far as to accuse CMI staff of being unsaved because they don’t agree with
their own strange and confused understanding of relativity (which they could not
even articulate coherently enough that anyone else could agree or disagree)
or because the Facebook moderators wouldn’t allow their own bizarre sidetracks
to set the course of the discussion. As CMI has mentioned, there’s little
point in adding to their battles, by joining disagreements on widely accepted
and well-attested principles such as relativity (and
quantum mechanics and
natural selection). It is folly to try to fight a battle on too many
fronts. Also, why not build arguments for Creation on ideas that creationists and
evolutionists both accept? In the eyes of at least some evolutionists,
that would increase the credibility of a creationist’s perspective (and scientific
training as well). In the same way that a skilled Christian theologian would use
the Jehovah’s Witnesses’own (corrupted) version of the Bible (New World Translation) to
convince them of the deity of Christ and His co-equality with the Father, so are
Creation scientists wise not to disagree on more subjects than necessary when arguing
for Creation. Remember how Paul argued with the Athenians on Mars Hill, and started
by appealing to their “unknown god” (Acts
17:22–31)?

123rf.com

To require agreement even on every single biblical issue, though, is to
inevitably break down the organization into smaller groups and, ultimately, to individuals—as
it’s unlikely that, even among Christians, there will be agreement on every
single issue. Is it really worth it to lose valuable allies on Creation as opposed
to evolution because of a difference on gun control, speaking in tongues, or the
timing of the Rapture? Certainly, those issues can be debated and discussed elsewhere,
whether on other discussion websites or in Bible study groups, etc.

But when someone insists that everyone, including CMI or one of its representatives,
take an official position on the proper form of baptism, for example, to avoid the
commenter’s own accusations of being ‘unbiblical’, one wonders
what he’ll do when he realizes that he’s suddenly acquired
a vast number of new allies on that issue which includes an even larger
number of people who disagree on the Creation issue? One doesn’t
build a strong alliance by insisting on agreement on minor issues and hoping
to retain agreement on the major ones at the same time. Much wiser is the
‘top-down’ strategy, i.e., to recruit those who agree on the major
issues while leaving individuals free to decide for themselves on the minor
ones, or at least free to save them for other discussions, in other
venues, or for person-to-person conversations.

If 100% agreement on every single issue were a requirement for any functional alliance,
there would be zero partnerships, zero alliances—even zero marriages—and
as many church denominations as there are Christians. Paul himself made clear that
not every minor issue needs to be agreed upon for there to be fellowship
among Christians on the essential issues. In Romans 14:5–7, he says,

One person esteems one day as better than another, while another
esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The
one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats
in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains,
abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself,
and none of us dies to himself.

Ironically—at least to those pushing agreement on every single issue—Paul
doesn’t bother to identify ‘the correct view’ even on
the issues he brings up in this passage! That should tell us something
about insisting on absolute conformity on minor issues.

One Body of Christ, many parts, different gifts

Apart from the importance of some issues over others, there’s a certain practicality
in limiting the number of issues to be addressed. Even regarding good and important
issues—as well as actions—there is no necessary mix-up in priorities
to focus on one or a few of them, as some have suggested when complaining that we
should ‘quit worrying about Creation and deal with the more important issues
like feeding the hungry and
preaching the gospel’. Rather, that complaint merely demonstrates
the ‘either/or’ (false dilemma) fallacy, i.e., the idea that only one
or the other can be done, when there are really three possibilities—doing
one, doing the other, or doing both (or four possibilities, if
you count doing neither). See also Is charity
more important than apologetics?

One of many good things to come out of the Reformation was valuing ‘secular’
work as honorable and serving the Lord.

Doing one does not prevent doing the other; and who’s to say that the staff
of CMI or other groups aren’t doing both, whether as an organization
or as individuals? If ‘spreading the gospel’ is the highest priority,
does that mean every person within the Body of Christ should be a preacher and evangelist?
If so, who would perform the various other tasks of the church? And would
that mean Christians could never work in secular fields like farming, repairing
computers, or construction work? One of many good things to come out of the Reformation
was valuing ‘secular’ work as honorable and serving the Lord.

While the disciples gave priority to ‘the ministry of the word of God’
in Acts 6:1–3, they didn’t dismiss the need to
provide food to the widows (‘wait[ing] on tables’) but assigned others
to perform that task—so that both could be done. Each person (or,
in some cases, each group of people) has his part in the Body of Christ,
which is a biblical description of the entire number of Christians within the church.
If the ‘Body of Christ’ imagery applied to every person or group within
the church rather than the whole, there would hardly be a need for the entire
group to be considered such.

Ironically, the complaint about priorities often seems to assume that spending any
time at all on one matter leaves no time for anything else. Yet the complaint is
often directed at one good work as compared to another. We rarely hear
it when it’s a matter of leisure activities versus godly endeavors: Why is
it that it’s never directed toward the Christian as he’s shopping, going
to a movie, or taking a hike in the mountains? Why is the ‘conflict’
perceived only when it’s regarding one good thing versus another
good thing, and never when it’s a good thing versus a neutral thing?

It’s doctrinal issues, though, that some seem particularly bothered by: They’re
especially upset that CMI won’t take an official position on this particular
issue or that. But as CMI has stated more than once, there’s wisdom in not
trying to fight a battle on too many fronts and in choosing which battles
to fight. It would certainly seem unwise, then, to devote unnecessary time
on and divert energy to debates on minor issues. The more urgent need—concerning
the root problem rather than the symptoms—is to convince
others of the authority of Scripture. Thereby the seed of proper decision-making
and doctrinal discernment is planted.

Related Articles

Further Reading

References and notes

Don’t be confused, though. When a CMI article says that
they ‘take no position on’ a particular issue, it’s not to be
understood that no one in the organization has ever thought the issue through. It’s
saying that there may be various positions on the issue among CMI staff members
and/or that it’s not a big enough issue to require absolute agreement on.
It also implies that the same issue isn’t to be a topic of discussion in the
threads of CMI’s Facebook page. Generally, such topics would include issues
disagreed on between Christians based on their interpretation or understanding of
Scripture (as opposed to evolution and extraterrestrial life, etc., which are based
on ideas outside of Scripture and whether they have authority over Scripture
itself). Such topics to avoid would include (but not necessarily be limited to):
alcohol consumption; baptism’s proper form; Bible versions (other than the
merits of gender-neutral or
‘conservative’ versions); Calvinism vs. Arminianism; capital
punishment; Christmas or
Easter celebrations or observance (whether proper or whether the traditional
dates are correct); claims of personal revelation; dancing; denominational differences;
environmentalism
(excessive or overly specific debates on environmentalism or ‘global
warming’, etc.); eschatology (the nature, timing, or interpretation
of future events, such as the Rapture, Tribulation, Millennium, etc.); forms of
church government; gun rights or control and self-defense; observance of Old Testament
feasts, laws, or the Sabbath (and whether required today); pacifism; piercings and
tattoos; purely political topics (having no relevance to CMI’s topics); rock
music; role of women in the church; souls (whether
man is or has a soul and how it’s propagated, e.g.,
Traducianism); speaking in tongues (what it is and whether it’s appropriate
today); or tithing (whether it’s required today). Also to be avoided are off-topic
subjects in general and of course the pitching of heterodox views (such as annihilationism) and plainly heretical views (modalism, Unitarianism, universalism, and obvious cults or false religions, etc.).
Return to text.

With more information than ever before, Christians can stand tall because the Word of God is real, authoritative and accurate. Your support is vital in keeping this site going and growing. Support this site

Comments closed

Readers’ comments

Graham P.,New Zealand, 27 December 2011

Excellent: very thorough.

Gordon S.,United Kingdom, 27 December 2011

The Lord gives to each one his work (Mark 13:34). This was also true in the jobs that were given to the Levites in Numbers 3. Today sometimes one finds that one person is trying to be a preacher, teacher administrator, etc. On the other hand there are some that expect almost every Christian to pull up his tent pegs, so to speak, and go as a missionary to a far off land. We should not be critics of other people’s work (Romans 14:4)

Joe J.,United States, 27 December 2011

Yes, yes, yes! Our movement must not be divided on dogmas within our local congregations. It’s time for the Body of Christ to fulfill Christ’s mandate for His people to be ONE! I’m not highly interested in someone’s preference for “proper baptism” or which day to set aside for worship. I DO care for the implementation of the TWO GREATEST COMMANDMENTS–love God and our neighbor as ourselves.

Jack C.,Australia, 27 December 2011

You are correct in saying we don’t have to all agree on every single minor topic or issue. In fact I would go one step further and say there is no Christian church or person in existence today or ever before that has all major and minor scriptural matters correct (except for Jesus himself). If there were then that church or person would be equal to Jesus himself. We all differ amongst ourselves on the interpretations of certain scriptural matters. Otherwise we would not have so many different Christian churches in existence today. Any particular church that says they know all the truth or has everything correctly interpreted, and the rest do not is like saying I have not committed sin but everyone else has. Only Jesus Christ, God in human form has committed no sin on this earth. Only God the Father knows and understands all the truth. We all have to make up our own minds about all the doctrinal issues, major and minor, knowing full well we can’t get it all right as we are humans who have sinned. The pivotal issue though is we are forgiven for our sins though the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and as long as we focus on that fact the rest will follow even though we have interpreted some doctrinal viewpoints incorrectly.